January 24, 2009

And the men's subjective account of what aroused them matched what the plethysmograph recorded, while the women's subjective account was — if we are to believe the plethysmograph — a pack of lies.

As soon as I asked about rape fantasies, [sex researcher Meredith] Chivers took my pen and wrote "semantics" in the margin of my notes before she said, "The word 'rape' comes with gargantuan amounts of baggage... I walk a fine line, politically and personally, talking frankly about this subject. I would never, never want to deliver the message to anyone that they have the right to take away a woman’s autonomy over her body. I hammer home with my students, 'Arousal is not consent.'"

We spoke, then, about the way sexual fantasies strip away the prospect of repercussions, of physical or psychological harm, and allow for unencumbered excitement, about the way they offer, in this sense, a pure glimpse into desire, without meaning — especially in the case of sexual assault — that the actual experiences are wanted.

"It’s the wish to be beyond will, beyond thought," Chivers said about rape fantasies. "To be all in the midbrain."...

She spoke about helping women bring their subjective sense of lust into agreement with their genital arousal as an approach to aiding those who complain that desire eludes them...

I think that the study failed, miserably, by failing to include non-primates copulating and other depictions or suggestions of sex that have no possible attraction issues connected with them. Like this one... Balloon Dogs

Otherwise it's just yet another person who thinks that anything about bonobos is relevant to human sexuality.

Flying in a wingsuit may be something I anticipate with intense pleasure. May even get the blood flowing just thinking about it. Doesn't mean that the minute I'm standing there on the side of a mountain faced with reality I don't crap my pants and back away as fast as possible from the edge.

Perhaps women have more disappointment in getting what we want than men, and so have come to keep our bodies desires separate from our minds desires? I'd be interested in the age data for the research done. I didn't see any reference to age in the article.

I have to agree with the author's point that "what Women Want is a real dilemma".That was a long article to get around to that truth.So what women want is an aggressive man who will risk everything just for them but he must seem to be a safe person too. Does that explain why money and political power are the best aphrodisiac. No wonder Bill Clinton was so lucky: he knew what they wanted. That means the Democrats will always get the female vote, unless the Dem is a wimp like john Kerry or an unsafe weirdo like Algore. Is it too late to recosider the vote for women in light of new scientific discoveries?

Seriously, the women in our lives are the only 100% good we men ever get.There are no downsides to a good woman's love and commitment. The sign we found and hung up at home sums it up:"We don't have it all together, but together we have it all".Before I learned this hard to see for a MAN truth, I tried to do it all myself. Boy was that foolish in hindsight. I was only the winner of the rat-race, the biggest Rat.

What women want isn't a mystery. They want men who can read their minds and know instinctively how to be their provocateurs while giving them the gentleness they seek and yet the ravishing they desire. It isn't about sex, it's about fulfillment, loyalty, fealty, and most of all, that all to important emotional bond. Look at all the great loves throughout history and see, what is it they all have in common? It's the males ability to emotionally bond with his female and her desires/needs/wants. But don't think for a minute it's a one way street from male to female as if she were some kind of succubus. It isn't. If the man gets it right, he gets it all.

So, since women don't really attempt to understand, does that mean they're not fully human?

The only people I've actually heard be prideful of their complexity and difficulty of being understood by others were really just confusing complex with obtuse and indecisive.

Women often times don't even know what they want in anything, much less a man until they are presented with the scenario at hand. While a woman may desire or want a man or anything else for that matter with a particular quality that she may find appealing, but when getting it realizes she's made a terrible mistake. Buyers remorse if you will and will go out of her way to either fix it or fix herself by doing other things. Sometime she will even try to live with it and see how it goes. Sometimes this works, most times it doesn't.

Men are fairly rationally simple. They don't gesticulate and vacillate about their choices in life. They have regrets to be sure, but they simply either put them out of their immediate thoughts and ruminate on them at a later more reflective time or they seek to fix the problem in the best ways they know how. Unfortunately for many men, they don't know how and stumble and fumble their way through the solution. Sometimes like a bull in a china shop. It can get messy.

"It is your mission in life to figure out what women want. There is nothing else, really, for you to do. It will make you fully human."

So are you saying that gay men aren't fully human?

I'm trying to figure out what women want in order to sell perfume. Who cares about being human. I want more money.

"Yeah, tell me about it. I feel like I hear about the bonobos every other time I turn on NPR."

I was going to joke that it's because NPR is run by bonobos, but then I got to thinking about it and realized that not even bonobos would think that stories about how "Obama energized barbers from Rochester" make for interesting radio. NPR is the audio version of The New York Times with two big, negative differences: you can't flip past the stupid and boring parts when you're listening to NPR and unlike the NYT, NPR can't go out of business because we the taxpayers foot the bill (and probably will be footing more of it now that the Democrats are in power).

Palladian: I think Victoria has a point. For instance, I recently had a date with a lovely complicated mysterious complex pretty woman. To some degree, I provided her protection, affection, and I was very non-judgmental of her. I don't think she wanted my money at all. She has her own money. We had a lot of fun together, laughed a lot. I like her. I think she likes me too.

"Palladian: I think Victoria has a point. For instance, I recently had a date with a lovely complicated mysterious complex pretty woman. To some degree, I provided her protection, affection, and I was very non-judgmental of her. I don't think she wanted my money at all. She has her own money. We had a lot of fun together, laughed a lot. I like her. I think she likes me too."

The reality and prevalence of rape fantasies on the part of both men and women highlights an uncomfortable truth that has long been known but that has been hush-hush since the sixties -- every human being is brought into the world by an act that is just plain dirty.

Anyway... there's a reason that men are into dirty pictures and women read dirty books.

I'm with TMink; I think Synova summed up the reason for the plethysmograph results. Men's arousal went along directly with the visual imagery and the women's arousal went along with tangential ideas the imagery conjured in their minds.

"Men's arousal went along directly with the visual imagery and the women's arousal went along with tangential ideas the imagery conjured in their minds."

True, but it's more than just that as researchers mentioned further in the article are discovering. Trust leads to intimacy which seems to stimulate the production of oxcitocin, a well-being hormone that seems to lead people to feel bonds of affection and familiarity. The visual stimuli are fine for the mechanics of sex to function but behaviors and actions that lead to trust and confidence seem to be what lead to long-term Denzel Washington type experiences.

I speak for everyone in PETA when I say that this sexual exploitation of bonobos has to stop. These gentle primates. don't come out of the rain forest with pierced nipples and cheap tattoos. Think of how bonobo porn has debased these poor creatures. Enough.

Palladian said...""It is your mission in life to figure out what women want. There is nothing else, really, for you to do. It will make you fully human." So are you saying that gay men aren't fully human?"

The "you" in my sentence was a heterosexual man. I'm talking about evolution and biological destiny. Where gay men fit in that is a separate question, but I do think you shouldn't wall yourself off from women. My experience with gay men is that have a great deal of sensitivity to the way women feel.

That's just it - our rights are equal, yes, but our requirements are not. The woman only has to be. The man has to do. He has to use all his powers to figure out what she wants and needs and desires and lead both to discover what that is. The rape fantasy isn't against her will but it does absolve her all responsibility of taking charge. The man must keep his head and think for both. She may tell him turn right but it's up to him to know if that is right and, if necessary, change course.

It's the same answer I give to women complaining about men. Easily stated, but not so easily actualized.

I think it's easier than people act like it is. Some people go out with people who treat them badly, take them for granted, lack character, etc. Why do they do that? It is a mystery. I don't understand it. They shouldn't do that. Why would they even want to do that?

Still pondering Meade's characterization. First impulse is that sure, the woman has to be. But I wouldn't say just be. She has to be worth figuring out. Of course, same with the man.... hmmm... don't know.

I think we're back in the realm of interpreting women by a certain sub-set of women that you fellows seem to think you ought to pursue.

It's a cultural artifact, this strange female who is so impractical and so very fickle.

The female analogy is the woman who chooses the irresponsible or abusive man-child.

It might all be due to the modern notion that to be happy one must "fall in love" and that one has no rational control over that. So we all choose without understanding that we *do* choose, and rather than take responsibility for our choices, we blame the other sex for not being what we wanted.

Some of it is because women are generally the "objects" of attention/arousal - so it's easy to project yourself into an attractive naked woman is on the screen. IOWs, you're her , you don't want to fuck her. It's completely different thing. They need to reword the questions if all they ask is are you aroused by the women.

Of course, there is an easy response to "men must be combined with women or all hell breaks loose," - "No, men must be combined with women or musical theater breaks loose." On second thought, anti-gay activists have very little sense of humor, so probably wouldn't work.

A man on his Harley was riding along the California coast when suddenly the sky clouded above his head and, in a booming voice, the Lord said, 'Because you have tried to be faithful to me in all ways, I will grant you one wish.'

The biker pulled over and said, 'Build a bridge to Hawaii so I can ride over anytime I want.'

The Lord said, 'Your request is materialistic, think of the enormous challenges for that kind of undertaking; the supports required reaching the bottom of the Pacific and the concrete and steel it would take! It will nearly exhaust several natural resources. I can do it, but it is hard for me to justify your desire for worldly things. Take a little more time and think of something that could possibly help mankind.'

The biker thought about it for a long time. Finally, he said, 'Lord, I wish that I and all men could understand women; I want to know how she feels inside, what she's thinking when she gives me the silent treatment, why she cries, what she means when she says 'nothing's wrong', why she snaps and complains when I try to help, and how I can make a woman truly happy.'

Interesting and thought provoking article, esp. for all of us guys who have over the years tried to figure out women, and esp. their sexuality.

It may end up that the reason that women are so complex in regards to sex and sexuality is similar to why they have hidden ovulation. At a minimum, I would suggest that it is because traditionally (i.e. before the "pill", etc.) sex involved a much greater risk for women, with a commensurate cost in resources, possibly including loss of life as a result of complications of pregnancy. But even without that, the expenditure of resources is much higher.

And because of this, I don't see it to a woman's advantage to give away her sexuality too easily. If males could detect mental and physical arousal that easily, they could manipulate it into sexual intercourse, which would, of course, be in their best interests of spreading their sperm.

So, maybe what happened was that the mental side grew up through evolution to control the physical in order to protect women from having sex with men who would not adequately support them and their children. This much higher difference in resources between the two sexes is one of the major differences between us and our closest relatives, the other two species of chimps.

The one thing that was barely mentioned that I think probably should have been more prominent, and, indeed controlled for, is that (straight) women seem to react more strongly to more masculine signals near their ovulation. This seems to possibly be the result of having two often conflicting concerns - on the one hand a dedicated good provider for her and her children, and on the other hand, the best genes. And, thence the surprising number of children by other men raised by cuckolded fathers. I think that this dynamic, if it is true, may affect the dynamics between the mental and physical sides of arousal by women.

As I said, interesting and thought provoking, esp. for those of us straight men here.

I seem to have missed most of the conversation here, but for the record: I thought that this study about arousal missed the point of their own data.

I suspect that the "arousal" that they measured in women wasn't really arousal as we'd understand it -- in the sense that it was the first couple of steps along the way to achieving orgasm. I suspect that it's more just an autonomic reflex -- an engorgement of the genitals that prepares them physically for a possible sexual encounter. It's no more arousal than "morning erections" in men.

I don't know too many women who get off on images of monkeys humping, after all.

But there's probably an evolutionary advantage to engorgement of the genitals, lubrication, etc., when stimuli indicate that insemination (be it willing or unwilling) may be imminent.

And as for rape fantasies in women: When did the obvious explanation (reduction of guilt associated with sexual pleasure by placing all burden of decision on the other partner) lose favor? Or is this too simplistic?

Bear in mind "rape" fantasy is a misnomer. No one wants to be violently forcefully penetrated, against their will and without giving consent (ricpic's request for gentleness notwithstanding).

If you read the entire article, you'll see the researcher, Marta Meana, explains that the fantasy is not about coercion, violence, or force, but about relinquishing control and surrendering to and being overpowered by the male's sexual desire. His powerful sexual desire feeds a healthy narcissistic need in her to feel desirable and the sole object of his passion.

But it's one of the major paradoxes of modern women's liberation - freedom to choose and control your own life course, equal rights and opportunity to provide income and support but, in their sexual relationships with men, women still want John Wayne, Clark Gable, and Denzel Washington to tell them to move over, baby, I'm doing the driving.

Unfortunately, that conflict has confused and wounded too many men who have become embittered, withdrawn, and who have bought into the notion that every woman is simply a fish who doesn't need a bicycle.

The truth is, what most fish want most of all is for trustworthy solid stable fast bicycles to come along, choose them, catch them, and take them for an exciting flying ride out of their safe tepid oceans all the way to the highest mountain peaks of ecstasy.

Which reminds me, in the sport of mountain bike racing there is a zen-like coaching phrase: "Be the bike."

Oh, I don't know, Meade. What was that movie from a couple decades back that starred Kelly McGillis and Jodie Foster? I saw it as an adolescent, and got the distinct feeling that I wasn't feeling the way about the scene in the back of the bar involving Jodie and a group of men that I was supposed to be feeling. If there are women out there that felt the same way about the scene as I did, then we're all at least a little screwed up.

John K.:The Accused was only a movie. If you think you may have been screwed up by it, you probably weren't... unless you think it may ever be okay to rape or sexually harass anyone. It isn't.

The article in the NYT Magazine has to do with the scientific study of sex and desire. It really doesn't get into postmodern aestheticization of violence and sex. BTW, according to one of the researchers, only about 10% of the women studied reported so-called rape fantasies.

Of course I don't think it's okay to rape or sexually harass anyone. And I should clarify my earlier remark. I was of course revolted by the scene in question, as I should have been and as the movie intended. But the scene was simultaneously, for lack of a better word, erotic. That troubled me. I don't think the movie itself screwed me up, but as I recollect it raised my consciousness for the first time to the idea that maybe this newfound wondrous realm of sexuality was not all pillows and candles and luvy-duvy. It presumably resonated with something dark within myself that I also presumed existed within others as well.

For the record, I don't find myself willy-nilly daydreaming about rape fantasies. I honestly don't think I'm any more twisted than the average Joe. Nor am I a big prude, or exceptionally ashamed of my pre-marital adventures. But I think that wrapped up with even the most ordinary screwing are feelings of conquest and humiliation that are somewhere on the same continuum with rape fantasies (with the rape fantasies being on an extreme end of that continuum).

This is an uncomfortable subject. I'm not having fun talking about it. I guess where I'm mainly coming from is that I side with the more traditional understanding of sex. I.e., it's not just another recreational activity among other recreational activities. Modesty and even a modicum of respect if not fear is appropriate with regards to it. Our sexual urges and predilections are not above suspicion, and do seem more or less deranged. It's not the path to enlightenment and fulfillment that many seem to expect from it. It's often at odds with love. It's not all it's cracked up to be, and society should stop perpetuating the lie that it is.